DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were previously objected to. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 05/30/2025. Accordingly, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 8 and 10 were previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 05/30/2025. Accordingly, the rejection to the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3878747 to Panjer (cited by Applicant) in view of US 20030205953 to Fox.
Regarding claim 1, Panjer discloses:
An aircraft galley container (100) comprising: an enclosure housing (200) defining a cavity (fig 3) within the enclosure housing; a door (120) moveable between an open position (fig 3) and a closed position (fig 2), wherein in the closed position, the door closes and seals the cavity (fig 2); an electronically controlled lock (122, 604); and a control system (102, 112) for selectably placing the electronically controlled lock in a locked mode and an unlocked mode (see paragraph 0018), wherein in the locked mode, the door is prohibited from opening and in the unlocked mode, the door is able to open (see paragraph 0018).
Panjer does not explicitly disclose: wherein the electronically controlled lock is an electromagnetic lock having an electromagnet and an armature plate, wherein the electromagnet and armature plate are arranged face to face, wherein the electromagnet is associated with at least one of the door or enclosure housing and the armature plate is associated with the other of the door or enclosure housing, and wherein the electromagnet, in response to being energized, produces an electromagnetic field to pull the armature plate toward the electromagnet.
However, Fox teaches that it is well known in the art an electronically controlled lock to be an electromagnetic lock (16a, 25a) having an electromagnet (16a) and an armature plate (25a), wherein the electromagnet and armature plate are arranged face to face (fig 1, when 15 is closed), wherein the electromagnet is associated with at least one of the door or enclosure housing and the armature plate is associated with the other of the door or enclosure housing (fig 1), and wherein the electromagnet, in response to being energized, produces an electromagnetic field to pull the armature plate toward the electromagnet (via power source through 21, see paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 2, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley container of claim 1, wherein the aircraft galley container is an oven (paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 3, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley container of claim 2, wherein the oven is a microwave oven (see paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 4, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley container of claim 1, wherein the aircraft galley container is a refrigerator (see paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 7, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley container claim 1, wherein the control system comprises a singular switch (106), wherein when a user presses the switch the singular switch changes which mode of the locked mode or unlocked mode the electronically controlled lock is in (user presses 106 to lock/unlock).
Regarding claim 8, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley container of claim 7, wherein the singular switch is a touch sensor (display and button of 106, see col 8, lines 35-40), wherein the touch sensor is a capacitive touch electrode (display is a touch sensor, touch sensors use capacitor electrodes to function).
Regarding claim 9, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley container of claim 1, wherein the control system comprises a first switch and a second switch (Panjer discloses the aircraft discloses at least one controller and display. This includes having two separate controllers and displays), wherein when a user presses the first switch the electronically controlled lock is placed into the locked mode and when a user presses the second switch the electronically controlled lock is placed into the unlocked mode (with two controllers. The user is capable of using the first control to lock and the second controller to unlock).
Regarding claim 10, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley container of claim 9, wherein the first switch and the second switch are each a touch sensor (display and button of 106, see col 8, lines 35-40), wherein the touch sensor is a capacitive touch electrode (display is a touch sensor, touch sensors use capacitor electrodes to function).
Regarding claim 12, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley container of claim 1, wherein the control system comprises a transceiver (114) configured to receive input from a device remote from the aircraft galley container containing instructions for placing the electronically controlled lock into one of the locked and unlocked modes (see paragraph 0020, 102 is configured to be a remote phone computing device).
Regarding claim 13, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
An aircraft galley system (fig 2) comprising: a plurality of the aircraft galley containers (fig 3) as set forth in claim 12; and a central control device (102), wherein the central control device is the device remote from the aircraft galley container.
Regarding claim 14, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley system of claim 13, wherein the central control device is a portable personal electronic device (see paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 15, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley system of claim 13, wherein the central control device is a central controller for a cockpit of an aircraft (paragraph 0020, 0023. 102 is a central controller that is used by crew members on the aircraft, including the cockpit).
Regarding claim 16, Panjer in view of Fox discloses:
The aircraft galley container of claim 1, wherein the electromagnet is fixedly coupled to the enclosure housing and wherein the armature plate is fixedly coupled to the door (fig 1, Fox).
Regarding claim 17, Panjer in view of Fox does not explicitly disclose:
The aircraft galley container of claim 1, wherein the electromagnet is fixedly coupled to the door and wherein the armature plate is fixedly coupled to the enclosure housing.
However, Panjer in view of Fox teaches that it is well known in the art for: wherein the electromagnet is fixedly coupled to the enclosure housing and wherein the armature plate is fixedly coupled to the door. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electromagnet in the door and the armature plate in the housing at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing an electromagnet and an armature plate. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3878747 to Panjer in view of US20080083242 to Muller et al (Muller) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 6, Panjer does not explicitly disclose:
The aircraft galley container of claim 1, further comprising a gasket arranged at a perimeter of the enclosure housing and configured to contact and seal with an inner surface of the door when the door is in the closed position for sealing the cavity.
However, Muller teaches that it is well known in the art for a fridge to comprise a gasket (550) arranged a perimeter of the enclosure housing and configured to contact and seal with an inner surface of the door when the door is in the closed position for sealing the cavity (fig 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Muller into Panjer at least because doing so would provide added security by fulling sealing the door, preventing leakage. See also paragraph 0046.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3878747 to Panjer in view of US 20030205953 to Fox, and in further view of US 20190210730 to Riedel et al (Riedel) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 11, Panjer in view of Fox does not explicitly disclose:
The aircraft galley container of claim 1, wherein the control system comprises a radio frequency identification unit, configured to place the electronically controlled lock into the unlocked mode when a secondary RFID device is brought into proximity with the RFID unit, and to place the electronically controlled lock into the locked mode when the secondary RFID device is not in proximity with the RFID unit.
However, Riedel teaches that it is well known in the art for the use of RFID that is configured to place the electronically controlled lock into the unlocked mode when a secondary RFID device is brought into proximity with the RFID unit, and to place the electronically controlled lock into the locked mode when the secondary RFID device is not in proximity with the RFID unit (paragraph 0015). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riedel into Panjer in view of Fox at least because doing so would provide added security by making sure no containers are unlocked during undesirable circumstances, such as when the crew is not nearby.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights